http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER: LUHAR AMRIT LAL NAGJI
Vs.
RESPONDENT: DOSHI JAYANTILAL JETRALAL AND OTHERS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/05/1960
BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS
CITATION: 1960 AIR 964 CITATOR INFO : R 1967 SC 727 (3)
ACT: Hindu Law-Father’s anticedent debt-Pious obligation of sons to pay-Onus.
HEADNOTE: A Hindu father, speculating in gold and silver, lost heavily and sought to recoup by borrowing on a mortgage. The mort- gagee obtained a decree and sought to execute it by sale of the mortgaged property. The sons and the wife sued for a declaration that the decree was not binding since the debt though antecedent was immoral (avyavaharik). The trial court found in their favour and on appeal the District judge affirmed its decision. On second appeal the High Court held that it was for the plaintiff s to prove not merely that the antecedent debt was immoral but also that the mortgagee had notice of the said character of the debt and since they had led no evidence to discharge that onus, they were not entitled to a decree. The plaintiffs came up on appeal by special leave: Held, that the High Court took the correct view of the law and the appeal must fail. Any attempt to test the correctness of the principles laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Suraj Bunsi Koer, which have held the field for more than three qua...